The New York Times runs an “aliens are maybe real” story

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 25, 2020

Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

So we hear from Gizmodo:

The New York Times published a story Thursday night about the likelihood that aliens have visited Earth. The main takeaway? Aliens could be real and the U.S. government has been conducting classified briefings in recent years about things left behind by “off-world vehicles.”
So what does the new article have to say about the possibility of little green men—aside from the ones currently in Portland? A well-funded group inside the Office of Naval Intelligence is actively investigating unexplained encounters between members of the military and unidentified flying objects. And while some of the “materials” recovered by U.S. government sources have turned out to have perfectly innocent explanations, some materials are still a total mystery.
Matt Novak, “New York Times Casually Drops Another Story About How Aliens Are Probably Real” at Gizmodo

Here at the New York Times (paywall).

There are many total mysteries out there. We need more to go on than mere mystery to take aliens seriously. One remembers the astronomer who convinced himself recently that space detritus Oumuamua was an extraterrestrial light sail and accused the rest of us of being too dumb to see that.

Like we said, as long as there’s an Out There Out There, they’ll be Out There

See also: Tales of an invented god

Comments

Upright BiPed: It’s just incredible. WJM, you may be right. Subconscious. Entirely unaware. Show me where Dr Pattee agrees with you. If you can't then you have no evidence that he does. That doesn't mean he doesn't actually agree with you but I'm talking about actual evidence. I'm going to take Dr Pattee as being the best person to interpret and draw conclusions from his own work since, as you say, he's thought about it for a very long time. Also, as I mentioned in another reply: there are some variations in the genetic code observed on earth. How could that happen if it wasn't subject to unguided modifications and change? (I mistyped a similar comment earlier and didn't catch it. Ooops.)JVL_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

.
UB comment #883: Just to clear this up for you JVL. Listen carefully: Howard Pattee is not an ID advocate. Howard Pattee is not an ID advocate. And here is another: That does not change the science he produced. That does not change the science he produced. But if you just can’t bring yourself to listen to me, then just listen to you instead: “Good science is good science no matter where it comes from or who discovered it. If it’s repeatable, predictable and observer independent then I’m good.” - JVL JVL comment #884: I don’t think he does support intelligent design. At the very least, you have no evidence that he does support intelligent design. - - - - - - - - - - UB: I believe only someone bent on deception and rhetoric could possibly make that comment.
It’s just incredible. WJM, you may be right. Subconscious. Entirely unaware.Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: This isn’t an answer to the question you were being asked; it is a deliberate and calculated deflection of that question instead. Sometimes I try and cut to the chase as it were. Pattee says no one knows how the system originated, but spent five decades documenting that a semiotic system is indeed required for life and evolution to begin and persist over time. A semantically-closed semiotic system is the specific physical organization that enables both life and open-ended evolution to exist and function in a universe controlled by inexorable and unchanging physical law. And before Pattee was Von Neumann, who famously demonstrated that a high-capacity system of symbols and constraints were the fundamental requirements of open-ended self-replication. He referred to it as the “threshold of complication” – a threshold where below it was degeneration, but above it was open-ended potential. Sure but he didn't conclude it was designed either. So you’ve abused Pattee’s science here to deflect the force of a question. You used Pattee’s proper refrain from drawing a firm conclusion that cannot be proven about the source of the system, and leveraged it to imply that he doesn’t demonstrate that semiosis is required at the origin of the system. You are in fact implying the exact opposite of his entire life’s work. In other words, this is a dissembler’s maneuver that is absolutely false, right there in black and white for all to see. I also pointed out how he, in a published paper, mentioned the weakness (his characterisation, not mine) of an "intelligent design" (his quotes, not mine) argument. He did not have to include that in the paper in question, he chose to put it there. The paper doesn't gain or loose any academic standing with that comment. Why do you think he made that statement and put intelligent design in quotes? AND, again, there is no reason in the world that Dr Pattee has anything to fear by saying his working points to design if that's what he thinks. He can't lose anything at this point. He's considered one of the founders of the field. His work is taken very seriously. And that means nothing to you I guess. Anyway, you have no evidence that he infers design and I think I have pointed out a couple of reasons at least that he doubts it. Cue your denial and more of the same. Hey, I'm not making anything up. I'm telling you stuff anyone can find in Dr Pattee's own work. He has never, ever endorsed a design interpretation of his work. Ever. You can choose to come to that conclusion and, frankly, I can see how that would be a pretty clear path. But, so far, I have no evidence that Dr Pattee agrees with you.JVL_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

WJM: If it can’t be proved one way or another, then how can you reach the decision that it is a “Big” difference, when in fact evolutionary processes could be completely unnecessary in generating the presence of semiotic code, and may in fact require its presence before evolution could begin? Could be. But a living, evolving code could change or get modified over the eons. We do see some variations in the genetic code on earth. How could that happen if it was subject to variation? Also, I didn’t ask you if it could be proved, I asked that if it was proved, would you accept that as strong evidence that the semiotic code found in biology was intelligently designed? Like I said, I don't see how that could be done but if you want to have a go please do by all means.JVL_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

ET: Wow. Before life there was inanimate matter. So according to materialism life came from inanimate matter. Yup, it would have to have. The whole problem is JVL’s side cannot account for life. That means they have nothing to say about its diversity as the OoL is directly linked to it. Neither can you actually. Except to hypothesise some mysterious designer(s) whom we've never seen or heard from and who have left no physical artefacts behind except, of course, what you inferred was designed. A bit elusive your designer(s). It's almost like they didn't exist! :-)JVL_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

ET and Querius
Clearly Vlatko Vedral doesn’t know what he is talking about. I would never ask him to find the root cause of some object, event or structure. He would be lost in his only hubris.
Well, ET, Querius cited his work as proving materialism is false. I'll leave it to you two to fight it out.JVL_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

.
WJM: Would you agree that if it could be proven that semiotic code had to exist before evolution could begin that it is evidence the semiotic code found in life is intelligently designed? JVL: As far as I know that is impossible to prove which is why an expert like Dr Howard Pattee declared that no one knows how it all began.
This isn’t an answer to the question you were being asked; it is a deliberate and calculated deflection of that question instead. Pattee says no one knows how the system originated, but spent five decades documenting that a semiotic system is indeed required for life and evolution to begin and persist over time. A semantically-closed semiotic system is the specific physical organization that enables both life and open-ended evolution to exist and function in a universe controlled by inexorable and unchanging physical law. And before Pattee was Von Neumann, who famously demonstrated that a high-capacity system of symbols and constraints were the fundamental requirements of open-ended self-replication. He referred to it as the “threshold of complication” – a threshold where below it was degeneration, but above it was open-ended potential. So you’ve abused Pattee’s science here to deflect the force of a question. You used Pattee’s proper refrain from drawing a firm conclusion that cannot be proven about the source of the system, and leveraged it to imply that he doesn’t demonstrate that semiosis is required at the origin of the system. You are in fact implying the exact opposite of his entire life’s work. In other words, this is a dissembler’s maneuver that is absolutely false, right there in black and white for all to see. Cue your denial and more of the same.Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

JVL, If it can't be proved one way or another, then how can you reach the decision that it is a "Big" difference, when in fact evolutionary processes could be completely unnecessary in generating the presence of semiotic code, and may in fact require its presence before evolution could begin? Also, I didn't ask you if it could be proved, I asked that if it was proved, would you accept that as strong evidence that the semiotic code found in biology was intelligently designed?William J Murray_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

JVL:
One is alive and subject to evolutionary processes and pressures the other is inanimate.
Wow. Before life there was inanimate matter. So according to materialism life came from inanimate matter. The whole problem is JVL's side cannot account for life. That means they have nothing to say about its diversity as the OoL is directly linked to it.ET_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

The trouble is that this answer doesn’t really solve anything because as a physicist I’d also like to understand this being itself.
It does solve something and too bad that he wants to understand the intelligent designer. The only way to do so is through studying the design an all relevant evidence. We cannot study the designers of ancient artifacts. And yet archaeology is still fruitful. Clearly Vlatko Vedral doesn't know what he is talking about. I would never ask him to find the root cause of some object, event or structure. He would be lost in his only hubris.ET_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

Again, no one knows how materialistic processes could have done it. No one even knows how to test that claim. Therefore it is not part of science. Yes, we know how to test the claim that some intelligent agency did it. And the genetic code passes that test with ease.ET_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

The common answer is that there was some kind of original creator of this information. The trouble is that this answer doesn't really solve anything because as a physicist I'd also like to understand this being itself. I'd like to explain the origin of God. And then you encounter the same infinite regression. For a scientist, "Why is there a universe? Well, because something even more complicated created it the way it is" isn't an explanation. We want a better answer than that. You can argue that science will never get there, that it's an open-ended enterprise. Maybe this is faith.
-Vlatko Vedral Not exactly a ringing endorsement of intelligent design nor a death knell for materialism. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/07/vlatko-vedral-interview-aleks-krotoskiJVL_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Querius
Haha, you won’t even accept information about correctly using html tags. I’m not surprised. ????
I am quite aware of how to use 'blockquote' but bold is an easier tag to use because it's so much shorter and no one else has ever complained. My use is very clear. I was not initially discussing materialism. If you want to discuss that then talk to someone else.JVL_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

William J Murray: Would you agree that if it could be proven that semiotic code had to exist before evolution could begin that it is evidence the semiotic code found in life is intelligently designed? As far as I know that is impossible to prove which is why an expert like Dr Howard Pattee declared that no one knows how it all began.JVL_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

So, here's the problem, JVL. You said there is a big difference between semiotic code found in biology that has been evolving for millions of years, and semiotic code found in a transmission or a non-evolving artifact. You said there is a "Big" difference. The implication here is that millions of years of evolving biology might be able to produce semiotic code - otherwise, it wouldn't even be relevant to the debate and wouldn't be a "difference" in terms of what we are discussing = that finding semiotic code is evidence of intelligent design of that code. I asked: "Perhaps we can get to the bottom of it with the following question: Is semiotic code necessary for biological evolution to begin?" You replied: "I don’t know but I think it’s worth trying to find out." If you don't know whether or not biological evolution can occur without semiotic code, then there's no way to know whether or not millions of years of evolution is a "big difference," If semiotic code was necessary for evolution to take place, "millions of years of evolution" had not yet taken place. In fact, if semiotic code is necessary for evolution to occur, then not a second of evolution had to occur to produce the semiotic code because there would have been no evolution without it. Semiotic code would have predated evolutionary processes altogether. Would you agree that if it could be proven that semiotic code had to exist before evolution could begin that it is evidence the semiotic code found in life is intelligently designed?William J Murray_{July 29, 2020
July
07
Jul
29
29
2020
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

JVL, Oh, you're simply fleeing from professor Vedral's conclusion and leaving a smoke screen question to cover your retreat. Go and read his papers yourself. They clearly refute materialism.
I’m quite happy with my methods.
Haha, you won't even accept information about correctly using html tags. I'm not surprised. ;-) -QQuerius_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

William J Murray: Let me begin by saying yes, there is a BIG difference, but the question is, is the big difference a difference that matters in terms of what is being argued? I would say so. Perhaps we can get to the bottom of it with the following question: Is semiotic code necessary for biological evolution to begin? I don't know but I think it's worth trying to find out. Indeed. The evidence is overwhelming, if one but takes the time to find it and examine it. Nice to see you have an open mind.JVL_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Querius: So, obviously you disagree with professor Vedral. Perhaps you can explain why he’s wrong and tell us something about the source of information. What does Dr Vedral think is the source of the 'information'? For example, what distinguishes biological information from physical information? Are you familiar with the double-slit experiment? Yes I am aware of very famous physics experiments. Oh, and for variety, you might want to try different tags than just bold. There’s i for italics, and blockquote when you want to quote someone. I'm quite happy with my methods.JVL_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Upright BiPed: So you disagree with the logic and physical evidence of Pattee and Von Neumann that semiosis enabled description-based evolution (i.e life) to exist. Instead, you believe that description-based evolution caused semiosis to exist. They themselves did not argue against unguided processes being responsible. Is it too much to ask you to explain how description-based evolution existed without descriptions? What is your alternative? Specifically? Not just "design". But how and when and why and who. If that statement seems logical to you, then your objection to WJM fails logic, and I ask once again: can you go ahead and explain the double standard you apply? I don't think the standard for inanimate systems should be the same as for living systems.JVL_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Doubter @ 23, Your post was certainly noted and not ignored. I read it and agree with you that strange things do occur on our planet that are unidentified. In high school, I read "Project Bluebook" and anything else I could find on the subject. My dad was a EE, who once observed ball lighting move across the floor of his room, attributed many sightings as electromagnetic or atmospheric phenomena. As you wrote, recent sightings and even fighter jet radar lock-on encounters provide compelling evidence that something's there, however speculations as to their cause range from terrestrial, extraterrestrial, and even trans-dimensional spiritual sources. Similarities worldwide in megalithic architecture such as cyclopean masonry and similarities in mythologies worldwide are also intriguing. Unfortunately, we just don't know enough to come to scientific conclusions yet. -QQuerius_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Doubter @23: Indeed. The evidence is overwhelming, if one but takes the time to find it and examine it.William J Murray_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

JVL said: "I disagree. One is alive and subject to evolutionary processes and pressures the other is inanimate. Big difference." "Like I said: if anyone disagrees with you they must be wrong. No way you could be." Let me begin by saying yes, there is a BIG difference, but the question is, is the big difference a difference that matters in terms of what is being argued? Perhaps we can get to the bottom of it with the following question: Is semiotic code necessary for biological evolution to begin?William J Murray_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

I find it interesting that my post @2 has been studiously ignored. It seems that not only materialist pseudo-skeptics can have closed minds to the evidence. The only difference is what sort of evidence is ignored as supposedly impossible according to a fixed belief system or ideology. Different fixed in stone belief system or ideology, different evidence ignored without examination.doubter_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

JVL, Vlatko Vedral is a professor of Physics at the University of Oxford who specializes in quantum theory and whose research papers are widely cited. Here's how he views reality:
The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.
So, obviously you disagree with professor Vedral. Perhaps you can explain why he's wrong and tell us something about the source of information. For example, what distinguishes biological information from physical information? Are you familiar with the double-slit experiment? Oh, and for variety, you might want to try different tags than just bold. There's i for italics, and blockquote when you want to quote someone. -QQuerius_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

.
One is alive and subject to evolutionary processes and pressures the other is inanimate.
So you disagree with the logic and physical evidence of Pattee and Von Neumann that semiosis enabled description-based evolution (i.e life) to exist. Instead, you believe that description-based evolution caused semiosis to exist. Is that correct?
Like I said: if anyone disagrees with you they must be wrong. No way you could be.
Is it too much to ask you to explain how description-based evolution existed without descriptions? - - - - - - - - - - - - - EDIT: If A requires B in order for A to exist, then A cannot be the source of B. If that statement seems logical to you, then your objection to WJM fails logic, and I ask once again: can you go ahead and explain the double standard you apply?Upright BiPed_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

William J Murray: The semiotic code found in DNA is **exactly** the same thing as getting a transmission from space with systemic, even if alien, letters, punctuation and syntax that we successfully translated into meaningful words, sentences, paragraphs and books. I disagree. One is alive and subject to evolutionary processes and pressures the other is inanimate. Big difference. I think you are unable to see that which you are subconsciously committed against Y being clear evidence of intelligent design. To say that this code wasn’t necessarily intelligently designed, if honestly said, can IMO only be the result of subconscious-driven cognitive blindness. Like I said: if anyone disagrees with you they must be wrong. No way you could be.JVL_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

JVL, It seems the problem is that you are willing to agree that X would be evidence that a thing, like an E-M transmission, was intelligently designed (created deliberately by intelligent entities), but you insist Y is not necessarily evidence that a thing is intelligently designed (existence of semiotic code and relationships in biological life.) I think UB and Mr. Arrington are of the opinion that you know X and Y are actually, factually the same thing but using a different substrate (like a painting on a cave wall vs a painting on a canvas), but that you are trying to avoid admitting this. IMO, you are actually unaware that X and Y are the same thing because it is a cognitive blind spot IOW, I think you are unable to see that which you are subconsciously committed against Y being clear evidence of intelligent design. The semiotic code found in DNA is **exactly** the same thing as getting a transmission from space with systemic, even if alien, letters, punctuation and syntax that we successfully translated into meaningful words, sentences, paragraphs and books. I don't know how it would be possible to have more clear, undeniable, and convincing evidence of intelligent design. The discovery and translation of DNA and the observation of it's semiotic relationships with mechanisms in the cell is **exactly** like finding the computer code that runs an unimaginably huge and complex automated factory. To say that this code wasn't necessarily intelligently designed, if honestly said, can IMO only be the result of subconscious-driven cognitive blindness.William J Murray_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

LoL! Neither JVL, Dr Pattee nor anyone else in the world has a viable scientific alternative to the design inference with respect to the genetic code. The only reason people disagree with the design inference is due to personal biases and it has nothing to do with science. So yes, while open discussions are great, openly denying reality is for fools.ET_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington: One of them is to demonstrate that every time a materialist gets his feet held to the fire on the subject of semiosis, they lie, dissemble, whine, try to change the subject and otherwise obfuscate. Thank you for helping us make that point JVL. I did not lie, dissemble, whine or try to change the subject excepting in that Upright BiPed wanted to revisit a conversation he and I had previously. In that conversation I agreed with all the work done by Dr Howard Pattee but disagreed with Upright BiPed that the work necessarily implied design. I was very straight and honest about that. I also mentioned that Dr Pattee himself never made any statement or comment that his work implied design. I was also able to find a comment in one of his papers where he specifically discussed one of the weak (his characterisation, not mine) arguments of "intelligent design" (his quotes, not mine). All of this is quite true, no lying, no dissembling, none of that. Upright BiPed has been quite put out by all this. It seems to bother him immensely that I and Dr Pattee do not agree with his conclusion whereas it doesn't bother me at all that Upright BiPed conclusion differs from mine and Dr Pattee's. He even accused me of being part of some . . . group that wants to deny people the truth. Something like that. Unlike him I DO NOT copy and save everything he writes whereas he seems to remember everything I've written to him in the last two months or more. I was happy to discuss the issues with Upright BiPed, I thought it was interesting and I learned to understand his position better. I came to a different conclusion partially supported by Dr Pattee's lack of support for ID. What's the big deal? I thought, on this thread, we could discuss what kind of signal we might find possibly indicative of being generated by an intelligent alien race but Upright BiPed immediately tossed in a bunch of technical details and assumptions (some from SETI itself, grated) that I had not brought up and then asked why I had a double standard. If he's going to stalk me on this forum then I'm going to deprive you of your stated goal of trying to get people to "lie, dissemble, whine, try to change the subject and otherwise obfuscate", at least as far as I am concerned. I would like to encourage Retired Physicist and Seversky and the rest of the liars, obfuscators, clowns (yes, that has been used), EvoTards, etc to give this forum a break for a couple of weeks at least and see what kind of conversations occur aside from the constant pats on the backs from the acolytes., Just think, it might be like it was a few years ago when you had purged everyone you disagreed with and the site traffic went way, way down. You may have stopped the bans but you still have the same underlying attitude: you must be a liar or a lunatic to disagree with us and it's fair game to question any dissenter's mental state or motivation or even intelligence level.JVL_{July 28, 2020
July
07
Jul
28
28
2020
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

JVL, From my perspective, Upright BiPed is raising good points, although I have no idea what your conversation covered back in May. Determining whether signals encode information from an "intelligent" source can be extremely difficult. This is why in cryptography, the encrypted signal is supposed to be as close to noise as possible and why streams of encrypted data don't start and stop, but are continuous, possibly merged with noise. Compressed data is similar, but obviously optimized for brevity. So, assuming a radio signal comes from an intelligent alien source, wouldn't it likely be compressed, encrypted, or both? We know that DNA obviously does carry encoded information and, coupled with apparently multiple overlapping epigenetic codes, indicates a fantastically advanced source of intelligence by some of the same requirements as SETI has looked for in radio signals. Unfortunately, the information encoded in DNA is commonly assumed to have a natural source, while a radio signal encoding similar information would not. That's the irony that Upright BiPed is trying to convey to you. Did you not understand this or are you just rejecting the concept? Incidentally, if you want to quote someone don't use the b tag, but rather the blockquote tag in angle brackets. -QQuerius_{July 27, 2020
July
07
Jul
27
27
2020
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply